Peepee on Money
By peepee
5 Nov 2017 11:34 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
20 May 2020 12:29 am
Actually the best libertarians became "market anarchists" - neither left-wing nor right-wing - and they oppose corporate power just as much as state power.peepee » 19 May 2020, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑ ...i can certainly understand your distaste...the nets are chock-full of orange-mouthed republican-radio-level assholes who call themselves 'libertarian'...[ime, most of them are merely goddamned fool republicans who smoke dope]
...btw, it is my understanding that the best 'libertarians' left 'the libertarian party' after the **** republicans took the party over in 2008 and nominated for president the republican asshole, bob barf...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
23 May 2020 11:04 am
...in order to truly 'comm'unicate we must have a 'comm'on understanding of words/definitions/concepts...i believe 'anarchy' to be an impossibility...'an' a prefix meaning 'without'...'archy' = rule..so literally, 'anarchy' = 'without rule'... it is my understanding that with humans there are always going to be 'rules'...it's what we do...for example, i think you understand that if USFEDGOV left right now there would be all kinds of **** looking to 'rule'...maybe a 'local strongman'...maybe the hell's angels on the highways...etc. gangs galore...Polar1ty » 20 May 2020, 12:29 am » wrote: ↑Actually the best libertarians became "market anarchists" - neither left-wing nor right-wing - and they oppose corporate power just as much as state power.peepee » 19 May 2020, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑ ...i can certainly understand your distaste...the nets are chock-full of orange-mouthed republican-radio-level assholes who call themselves 'libertarian'
...btw, it is my understanding that the best 'libertarians' left 'the libertarian party' after the **** republicans took the party over in 2008 and nominated for president the republican asshole, bob barf...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
...as a 'minarchist' i support 'minimum rule'... VIGOROUSLY DEBATED transparent, EGALITARIAN 'rules'...
23 May 2020 11:26 am
"Anarchist" is a misnomer. They are pro-market municipalists (extreme decentralization) and oppose the banking monopoly as well as other monopolies.peepee » 23 May 2020, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑...in order to truly 'comm'unicate we must have a 'comm'on understanding of words/definitions/concepts...i believe 'anarchy' to be an impossibility...'an' a prefix meaning 'without'...'archy' = rule..so literally, 'anarchy' = 'without rule'... it is my understanding that with humans there are always going to be 'rules'...it's what we do...for example, i think you understand that if USFEDGOV left right now there would be all kinds of **** looking to 'rule'...maybe a 'local strongman'...maybe the hell's angels on the highways...etc. gangs galore...Polar1ty » 20 May 2020, 12:29 am » wrote: ↑
Actually the best libertarians became "market anarchists" - neither left-wing nor right-wing - and they oppose corporate power just as much as state power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
...as a 'minarchist' i support 'minimum rule'... VIGOROUSLY DEBATED transparent, EGALITARIAN 'rules'...
They are the cousins of 'libertarians' except they will never shill for the plutocracy/corporate oligarchy.
I do not consider myself one, but I have learned a lot from them.
23 May 2020 11:52 pm
Worth a readpeepee » 23 May 2020, 11:04 am » wrote: ↑...in order to truly 'comm'unicate we must have a 'comm'on understanding of words/definitions/concepts...i believe 'anarchy' to be an impossibility...'an' a prefix meaning 'without'...'archy' = rule..so literally, 'anarchy' = 'without rule'... it is my understanding that with humans there are always going to be 'rules'...it's what we do...for example, i think you understand that if USFEDGOV left right now there would be all kinds of **** looking to 'rule'...maybe a 'local strongman'...maybe the hell's angels on the highways...etc. gangs galore...Polar1ty » 20 May 2020, 12:29 am » wrote: ↑
Actually the best libertarians became "market anarchists" - neither left-wing nor right-wing - and they oppose corporate power just as much as state power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism
...as a 'minarchist' i support 'minimum rule'... VIGOROUSLY DEBATED transparent, EGALITARIAN 'rules'...
https://www.unz.com/article/financial-follies/
He notes problems with the "gold standard" and how "legal tender" was widely abused to FORCE creditors to accept "bank notes," which eventually became worthless because of the "boom and bust" caused by the overextension of private credit
His solution is interesting - he suggests designing a "metric" for the currency we use (such as the fact that a gallon of gas back in 1920 = a gallon of gas in 2020; a "gallon" is easily quantifiable/measurable) and vigorously enforcing its value based on said metric.
Also mentions bank counterfeiting the money supply into existence - seems to be a "monetary realist" with a slightly different take on the "solution" compared to what you proposed
26 May 2020 8:12 am
...thanks for this...i couldn't find where he specifies, somewhat precisely, who gets the/any 'newly-created money' in 'the first round of spending'...what i refer to as 'the issuance of money'.. that's very very important to me...Polar1ty » 23 May 2020, 11:52 pm » wrote: ↑ Worth a read
https://www.unz.com/article/financial-follies/
He notes problems with the "gold standard" and how "legal tender" was widely abused to FORCE creditors to accept "bank notes," which eventually became worthless because of the "boom and bust" caused by the overextension of private credit
His solution is interesting - he suggests designing a "metric" for the currency we use (such as the fact that a gallon of gas back in 1920 = a gallon of gas in 2020; a "gallon" is easily quantifiable/measurable) and vigorously enforcing its value based on said metric.
Also mentions bank counterfeiting the money supply into existence - seems to be a "monetary realist" with a slightly different take on the "solution" compared to what you proposed
...unfortunately, it is not important to, or understood by, republicrats... and so they will spend their energy on what they know: sports, fast food, pro wrasslin and trump vs. biden...
29 May 2020 6:07 am
....polar1ty, what are your best ideas as to how 'the money' should be created and issued?...
...you are about the only one here who has ever given this MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION any thought...
...certainly ALL the .orgers are clueless...
...you are about the only one here who has ever given this MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION any thought...
...certainly ALL the .orgers are clueless...
29 May 2020 7:59 am
peepee
Posts: 4,194
Politics: N/A
Contact: Contact peepee
Money: 4,278
Quote
....polar1ty, what are your best ideas as to how 'the money' should be created and issued?...
...you are about the only one here who has ever given this MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION any thought...
...certainly ALL the .orgers are clueless...
Only way I can quot is copy and paste.
kinetic motion of how and why specific details as timed apart are exactly as eternally positioned when, where, what, who was present at the events so far.
Keep arguing potential differences of opinions is nothing more than constant distractions by malcontents loathing life as reproductively timed apart now and they collectively direct everyone else to be as miserable about it as they are or else.
The psychologies of practicing Group methods of "our way or no way an individual can prove now is eternity with all the social facts based upon time line logistics historically performed so far.
The negative nobody can disprove academically, politically, spiritually, artistically, economically, socially, ancestrally sticking to vocabulary as all anyone can know as determined by traditional methods of keeping each ancestor a messenger of doubt now is eternity.
Posts: 4,194
Politics: N/A
Contact: Contact peepee
Money: 4,278
Quote
....polar1ty, what are your best ideas as to how 'the money' should be created and issued?...
...you are about the only one here who has ever given this MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION any thought...
...certainly ALL the .orgers are clueless...
Only way I can quot is copy and paste.
kinetic motion of how and why specific details as timed apart are exactly as eternally positioned when, where, what, who was present at the events so far.
Keep arguing potential differences of opinions is nothing more than constant distractions by malcontents loathing life as reproductively timed apart now and they collectively direct everyone else to be as miserable about it as they are or else.
The psychologies of practicing Group methods of "our way or no way an individual can prove now is eternity with all the social facts based upon time line logistics historically performed so far.
The negative nobody can disprove academically, politically, spiritually, artistically, economically, socially, ancestrally sticking to vocabulary as all anyone can know as determined by traditional methods of keeping each ancestor a messenger of doubt now is eternity.
30 May 2020 11:16 pm
I'd prefer just giving everyone (adults, citizens over 18+) newly minted money as a direct check. It's very efficient, equitable, requires almost no resources to execute (even for 300M+ people due to modern technology), etc.peepee » 29 May 2020, 6:07 am » wrote: ↑ ....polar1ty, what are your best ideas as to how 'the money' should be created and issued?...
...you are about the only one here who has ever given this MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION any thought...
...certainly ALL the .orgers are clueless...
Keep inflation as close to 0% as possible. If there is an economic downturn, can give more. If economy is growing, can give less.
Obviously if the government NEEDS to spend on infrastructure like sewer pipes, electric lines, etc., I'd be for that as well.
There are 2 reasons I'm NOT as enthusiastic about "spending the money into existence" (which was mentioned in at least one or two of the videos you've posted)
1) A lot of social democrats/leftists like Bernie Sanders will very likely abuse the system, and spend the money in a haphazardly wasteful manner. While I am NOT a "libertarian," I understand the government should make some minor tweaks to the economy instead of trying to direct it altogether.
2) If "the government" decides to "spend" the money into existence, you actually run into a very similar problem as when the BANKERS were allowed to print money - namely, which groups or "corporations" get the funds to fulfill government projects and contracts?
After all, the government often outsources its projects. So allowing the government to "spend" [X] amount into existence, and [X] flows into the pockets of private corporations...you can see how this can create many problems, right?
That invites many possibilities of CORRUPTION and NEPOTISM. Something to keep in mind.
30 May 2020 11:30 pm
This is a bit off topic, but I remember "Ricky Tavy" (I'm sure you haven't forgotten himpeepee » 06 Nov 2017, 12:34 am » wrote: ↑ ...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pieholes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]
...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity
Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.
To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.
The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.
It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."
In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.
What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.
Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.
But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.
Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right."
) made the argument that when president Andrew Jackson got rid of the Second Bank of the USA back in 1836/1837 (can't remember the exact year), the economy plunged into a depression.And this somehow...was Jackson's fault.
It is true the economy fell into a depression...except RT was too ignorant/naive/maybe just too plain stupid to connect the dots...OF COURSE the bankers will crash the economy (by refusing to lend) in order to try and uproot the current sitting president who was hostile to the notion of having a central bank (of course, Jackson never got rid of the ability of PRIVATE BANKS to conjure money - he only got rid of the central bank whose primary job was to prop up commercial banks).
Jesus **** Christ...that's so obvious but he somehow missed the point.
Anyway, this is exactly why I am an extreme pessimist. If someone TRULY were to try and "drain the swamp" (not Trump, as Trump is a SWAMP COLLABORATOR), they will face all sorts of impossible battles:
- Manufactured "sex scandals" ("sexual harassment," rape allegations, etc. - see "Julian Assange")
- Manufactured corruption scandals
- Bankers will crash the economy, which then the STOOOOOOOOPID sheeple will blame on the president and NOT the "true culprits"
- Manufactured pandemics
- Manufactured "fake news" and lies
etc. ad. infinitum
Really, it would take a miracle...all the stars would have to line up to finally "DRAIN THE SWAMP."
Good luck with that.
2 Jun 2020 6:22 am
...thanks for this...this is the most thoughtful response i can remember receiving in my years of internet monetary preaching... ...you have provided so much food for thought I will not hunger for topic$ for a long time!..Polar1ty » 30 May 2020, 11:16 pm » wrote: ↑ I'd prefer just giving everyone (adults, citizens over 18+) newly minted money as a direct check. It's very efficient, equitable, requires almost no resources to execute (even for 300M+ people due to modern technology), etc.
Keep inflation as close to 0% as possible. If there is an economic downturn, can give more. If economy is growing, can give less.
Obviously if the government NEEDS to spend on infrastructure like sewer pipes, electric lines, etc., I'd be for that as well.
There are 2 reasons I'm NOT as enthusiastic about "spending the money into existence" (which was mentioned in at least one or two of the videos you've posted)
1) A lot of social democrats/leftists like Bernie Sanders will very likely abuse the system, and spend the money in a haphazardly wasteful manner. While I am NOT a "libertarian," I understand the government should make some minor tweaks to the economy instead of trying to direct it altogether.
2) If "the government" decides to "spend" the money into existence, you actually run into a very similar problem as when the BANKERS were allowed to print money - namely, which groups or "corporations" get the funds to fulfill government projects and contracts?
After all, the government often outsources its projects. So allowing the government to "spend" [X] amount into existence, and [X] flows into the pockets of private corporations...you can see how this can create many problems, right?
That invites many possibilities of CORRUPTION and NEPOTISM. Something to keep in mind.
...i will merely scratch the surface today... I believe in an 'egalitarian' $ystem where everyone receives any newly-created money 'pro-rata'.. [i believe the term 'newly minted' connotes metallic money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_(facility) ...i believe a metallic money system is a very very bad idea..] ...parents would oversee the money for their children until some arbitrary age...i'll let others fight over that age...
...as to 'keeping inflation at/close to 0%', i assume you mean 'price inflation' unless you plan to tax all newly-created/issued money back and then destroy it?...
...i will think and write much more later...thanks...
2 Jun 2020 9:06 am
Yes, I wasn't specific enough about the inflation issue - I meant "price inflation," - there's no need to "tax the money back" and destroy it unless there are unusual circumstances...
2 Jun 2020 9:17 am
Polar1ty » 02 Jun 2020, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑ Yes, I wasn't specific enough about the inflation issue - I meant "price inflation," - there's no need to "tax the money back" and destroy it unless there are unusual circumstances...
Polarity. When I saw that very kind, sweet, sensitive, post of pee pee's. I swooned. I had to pick myself up from the floor and dust myself off.
2 Jun 2020 4:24 pm
sootedupCyndi » 02 Jun 2020, 9:17 am » wrote: ↑ Polarity. When I saw that very kind, sweet, sensitive, post of pee pee's. I swooned. I had to pick myself up from the floor and dust myself off.
omg? I'm still not over this nice post?
3 Jun 2020 8:26 am
[what up with the italic function?]
...cyndi, peepee is usually a big old softie... but peepee is very very hard on loud stooooooooooopid republicrats...but only when the stoooopid republicrat brings up politics first...i make it a HARD rule that i never initiate when i'm face to face...of course here is different ....but not really that different...i don't use foul language 'in public' and i try to maintain a smiling soft-spoken presentation...oh i cut loose wickedly around a handful of family/friends when pressed but i bite my tongue bloody and i religiously try to avoid loud stooooooooopid republicrat types...except here...this place is cathartic...
POLAR!TY: "Obviously if the government NEEDS to spend on infrastructure like sewer pipes, electric lines, etc., I'd be for that as well."
.....maybe the newly-created money could be divided into two categories 1.) money to be directed through 'the political process' for 'legitimate functions of government'... and 2.) the money to be credited directly to individuals... [the ying yangs have something they call ?'universal basic income'? [i 'd love to $hed some light for the ying yangs]
...of course this would set off a huge argument over 'the $plit'.... 10% gov., 90% individuals?, 50-50?...what a great beautiful fight and enlightenment could ensue as now the incentives move in favor of individuals....
...cyndi, peepee is usually a big old softie... but peepee is very very hard on loud
stooooooooooopid republicrats...but only when the stoooopid republicrat brings up politics first...i make it a HARD rule that i never initiate when i'm face to face...of course here is different ....but not really that different...i don't use foul language 'in public' and i try to maintain a smiling soft-spoken presentation...oh i cut loose wickedly around a handful of family/friends when pressed but i bite my tongue bloody and i religiously try to avoid loud stooooooooopid republicrat types...except here...this place is cathartic...POLAR!TY: "Obviously if the government NEEDS to spend on infrastructure like sewer pipes, electric lines, etc., I'd be for that as well."
.....maybe the newly-created money could be divided into two categories 1.) money to be directed through 'the political process' for 'legitimate functions of government'... and 2.) the money to be credited directly to individuals... [the ying yangs have something they call ?'universal basic income'? [i 'd love to $hed some light for the ying yangs]
...of course this would set off a huge argument over 'the $plit'.... 10% gov., 90% individuals?, 50-50?...what a great beautiful fight and enlightenment could ensue as now the incentives move in favor of individuals....
3 Jun 2020 8:50 am
20 gov - 80 ind.
In a past life, I used to support greater levels of government spending, a stronger welfare state, etc.
But eventually I realized that a lot of the money is completely wasted, while the bureaucrats always hide behind "noble causes"...
Just look at the bloated salaries/"compensation packages" of the top administrators of public schools and universities today. Outrageous.
Even though I am not a "libertardian," I believe "libertardians" are mostly correct when they say a lot of money that is earmarked for specific purposes NEVER MAKE IT to their intended destination. They simply get pocketed and written off as an "expense" on the balance sheet when audit time comes.
I wouldn't place much faith on "Yin Yangs," they seem pretty ignorant on how a UBI would possibly work out, and most of them are NOT in favor of limiting immigration. In fact, Yang himself is pro-immigration. On the other hand, I would like to see LOWER levels of immigration (not because I'm a "racist," but because I am a REALIST and cannot see how a country can sustain a larger and larger population of relatively unskilled workers in the age of automation.)
In a past life, I used to support greater levels of government spending, a stronger welfare state, etc.
But eventually I realized that a lot of the money is completely wasted, while the bureaucrats always hide behind "noble causes"...
Just look at the bloated salaries/"compensation packages" of the top administrators of public schools and universities today. Outrageous.
Even though I am not a "libertardian," I believe "libertardians" are mostly correct when they say a lot of money that is earmarked for specific purposes NEVER MAKE IT to their intended destination. They simply get pocketed and written off as an "expense" on the balance sheet when audit time comes.
I wouldn't place much faith on "Yin Yangs," they seem pretty ignorant on how a UBI would possibly work out, and most of them are NOT in favor of limiting immigration. In fact, Yang himself is pro-immigration. On the other hand, I would like to see LOWER levels of immigration (not because I'm a "racist," but because I am a REALIST and cannot see how a country can sustain a larger and larger population of relatively unskilled workers in the age of automation.)
7 Jun 2020 6:32 am
polar!ty writes: "20 gov - 80 ind.
In a past life, I used to support greater levels of government spending, a stronger welfare state, etc.
But eventually I realized that a lot of the money is completely wasted, while the bureaucrats always hide behind "noble causes"...
Just look at the bloated salaries/"compensation packages" of the top administrators of public schools and universities today. Outrageous."
....agreed...do you think milton friedman's construct is accurate? [number 4 = government spending]: "There are four ways to spend money. 1.) You can spend your own money on yourself – you have a great incentive to economize and get the best bang for your buck. 2.) You can spend your own money on somebody else, perhaps by buying your neighbor a present. Again, you will seek to economize; but you won’t care as much about getting good value for money. “You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like – provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort,” Friedman said. 3.) Then you can spend somebody else’s money on yourself. Imagine a lunch on an expense account: you will try and spend as much as you can get away with, with limited incentive to economize, but seeking to get the best possible meal for yourself. 4.) Last but not least, you could spend someone else’s money on yet another person. You will have little interest in economizing – and won’t care too much about getting the greatest value for money."
In a past life, I used to support greater levels of government spending, a stronger welfare state, etc.
But eventually I realized that a lot of the money is completely wasted, while the bureaucrats always hide behind "noble causes"...
Just look at the bloated salaries/"compensation packages" of the top administrators of public schools and universities today. Outrageous."
....agreed...do you think milton friedman's construct is accurate? [number 4 = government spending]: "There are four ways to spend money. 1.) You can spend your own money on yourself – you have a great incentive to economize and get the best bang for your buck. 2.) You can spend your own money on somebody else, perhaps by buying your neighbor a present. Again, you will seek to economize; but you won’t care as much about getting good value for money. “You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like – provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort,” Friedman said. 3.) Then you can spend somebody else’s money on yourself. Imagine a lunch on an expense account: you will try and spend as much as you can get away with, with limited incentive to economize, but seeking to get the best possible meal for yourself. 4.) Last but not least, you could spend someone else’s money on yet another person. You will have little interest in economizing – and won’t care too much about getting the greatest value for money."
7 Jun 2020 7:19 am
@ polarity and peepee.
Those smart enough to fool themselves about life are smart enough to make others defy real hoping nobody ever discovers how time separates all things universally occupying the moment here as cycled together in this atmosphere.
Polarity playing the contextual immortal soul of passed lifetimes in character role playing zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, adult, don't know and don't care about his or her becoming a biological 50/50 proportion of a children, 25% grandchildren, 12.5% great grandchildren, 6,25% next generation after that.
Knowing what separates genetic time and social time spent serving ideologies you both are so corrupted you wouldn't acknowledge honesty when having anonymous conversations in cyberspace. You defend realities as if you know life doesn't exceed the moment here.
Those smart enough to fool themselves about life are smart enough to make others defy real hoping nobody ever discovers how time separates all things universally occupying the moment here as cycled together in this atmosphere.
Polarity playing the contextual immortal soul of passed lifetimes in character role playing zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, adult, don't know and don't care about his or her becoming a biological 50/50 proportion of a children, 25% grandchildren, 12.5% great grandchildren, 6,25% next generation after that.
Knowing what separates genetic time and social time spent serving ideologies you both are so corrupted you wouldn't acknowledge honesty when having anonymous conversations in cyberspace. You defend realities as if you know life doesn't exceed the moment here.
7 Jun 2020 11:35 pm
Is accurate.peepee » 07 Jun 2020, 6:32 am » wrote: ↑ polar!ty writes: "20 gov - 80 ind.
In a past life, I used to support greater levels of government spending, a stronger welfare state, etc.
But eventually I realized that a lot of the money is completely wasted, while the bureaucrats always hide behind "noble causes"...
Just look at the bloated salaries/"compensation packages" of the top administrators of public schools and universities today. Outrageous."
....agreed...do you think milton friedman's construct is accurate? [number 4 = government spending]: "There are four ways to spend money. 1.) You can spend your own money on yourself – you have a great incentive to economize and get the best bang for your buck. 2.) You can spend your own money on somebody else, perhaps by buying your neighbor a present. Again, you will seek to economize; but you won’t care as much about getting good value for money. “You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like – provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort,” Friedman said. 3.) Then you can spend somebody else’s money on yourself. Imagine a lunch on an expense account: you will try and spend as much as you can get away with, with limited incentive to economize, but seeking to get the best possible meal for yourself. 4.) Last but not least, you could spend someone else’s money on yet another person. You will have little interest in economizing – and won’t care too much about getting the greatest value for money."
Government spending is a necessary evil - hence why I am not a "libertarian."
7 Jun 2020 11:38 pm
Ok boomeromh » 07 Jun 2020, 7:19 am » wrote: ↑ @ polarity and peepee.
Those smart enough to fool themselves about life are smart enough to make others defy real hoping nobody ever discovers how time separates all things universally occupying the moment here as cycled together in this atmosphere.
Polarity playing the contextual immortal soul of passed lifetimes in character role playing zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, teen, adult, don't know and don't care about his or her becoming a biological 50/50 proportion of a children, 25% grandchildren, 12.5% great grandchildren, 6,25% next generation after that.
Knowing what separates genetic time and social time spent serving ideologies you both are so corrupted you wouldn't acknowledge honesty when having anonymous conversations in cyberspace. You defend realities as if you know life doesn't exceed the moment here.
8 Jun 2020 1:21 am
polarity? sorry to but in on pee pee's thread. But what the heck omh does? how come your up so late at night? don't you sleep?
Who is online
In total there are 6056 users online :: 12 registered, 17 bots, and 6027 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Buck Naked, ROG62, Beekeeper, jerra b, LowIQTrash, PhiloBeddo, nefarious101, sole, Huey, Fuelman
Bots: SiteLockSpider, Not, TTD-Content, LCC, okhttp, proximic, ADmantX, YandexBot, DuckDuckBot, CriteoBot, facebookexternalhit, Applebot, Baiduspider, Googlebot, bingbot, curl/7, Mediapartners-Google